Background to this inspection
Updated
22 June 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 11, 16, 19 and 24 May 2016 and was announced. This included visiting two of the provider’s supported houses to meet people using the service. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides supported living services for people with a learning difficulty for who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.
The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector.
Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. We also reviewed the action plan from the most recent local authority commissioning team visit to the service.
We spoke briefly with five people who used the service and four family members. We also spoke with the registered manager and four care workers. We looked at the care records for four people who used the service, medicines records for four people, training and supervision records for all care workers and recruitment records for three care workers.
Updated
22 June 2016
The inspection took place on 11, 16, 19 and 24 May 2016 and was announced. We last inspected this service on 16 November 2015. We found the service was meeting the regulations we inspected against.
Stirling Supported Living Scheme is a domiciliary support agency for people with learning disabilities. The people using the service all live in independent supported living houses with 24 hour support provided.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and family members were happy with the care provided at the service. One person said, “I like living here.” One family member commented, “[My relative] is well cared for. A great job they are doing with [my relative].” Another family member said, “[My relative] is well cared for by the service. He is well looked after.” People were care for by kind and caring staff. One person commented, “[Care worker] is very nice.” Another person said, “They [care workers] help me.” One family member said, “Staff are lovely with [my relative].” Another family member said, “The staff seem to be quite good.”
The provider had a positive approach to risk management. We saw potential risks had been identified and assessed jointly with the person using the service. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly to keep them up to date with people’s current needs.
Care workers showed a good understanding of safeguarding and the provider’s whistle blowing procedure. They told us they did not have any concerns about people’s safety but would not hesitate to raise concerns if required.
Medicines were managed safely. We found medicines administration records (MARs) were usually completed accurately to account for the medicines given to people. Medicines were administered by trained and competent care workers.
There were sufficient care workers on duty to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. One care worker said, “We have got enough staff. We have a good staff team here.”
Effective recruitment checks were in place to ensure new care workers were suitable to work with the people using the service. This included requesting references and carrying out Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.
The provider followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found people were supported to make decision in their best interests. Care workers had a good knowledge of the importance of seeking consent from people before providing care.
Care workers were well supported to carry out their role and received the training they required.
People were supported with their nutritional requirements in line with their needs. Where specific needs had been identified guidance and advice had been sought from the relevant professionals.
People’s needs had been assessed which included gathering detailed information about their life history and preferences. Personalised care plans had been written to guide care workers as to the care people wanted and needed.
People accessed a wide range of activities within the community. Some people accessed the local community independently.
There had been no complaints made about the service. None of the people or family members we spoke with raised any concerns with us.
We received positive feedback from care workers about the registered manager. One care worker told us, “[Registered manager] is brilliant. The service is run really well.”
Regular memos were sent to care workers providing updates about the service and any other relevant information. These replaced face to face meetings, which were difficult to arrange due to the dispersed nature of the service.
There were effective systems of checks in place to assess the quality of people’s care. For example, checks of medicines, support plans, goals, access to health care services and activities undertaken. These had identified areas for improvement. The registered manager was making progress with an action plan developed following a recent local authority commissioning team review of the service.